Law as Healing Practice

By Bill van Ziverden

Few would argue that the practice of law is in pursuit of the goal
of justice. The controversy begins when what is perceived to be the
practice of law appears repugnant to what is considered to be
justice.

So what is it that people mean when they
expect justice to be done? Often both winners and losers
will complain that justice was not served. There
is no justice. Having to go through the process alone is interpreted
as a painful or losing experience. I believe the answer goes beyond
mere winning or losing.

I submit the reason, which underlies
not only the publics dissatisfaction of the profession, but our
own, is that the current practice of law is in pursuit of a justice
which is itself dissatisfying. And, our ideal of justice,
which embodies quite another perspective entirely, is one that we,
as a society, are unfortunately afraid to pursue. If we would but take
the risk of pursuing the ideal, both the publics experience and
the practitioners journey might well be joyful.

Perhaps
it is time to re-examine and re-cast our definitions and re-focus our
pursuit.

Websters defines a goal as [t]he end to which
effort is directed.1
We think of goals as something to aim for,
an ambition, our aspiration, things we seem to only dream about. In
fact the importance of goals cannot be underestimated. They direct
our every action. The benefits of using ideals as goals is that they
will expand and evolve our current methods toward that which we see
as ideal. As each new goal draws near, our goals are defined further
from our grasp in order to keep our path ever expanding and evolving.

When a goal does not envision our ideals, its pursuit does not
stretch us to improve or exceed our current limits, but only reinforces
the walls and boundaries that we have constructed. Blacks Law Dictionary
defines justice as the Proper administration of laws...[T]he
constant and perpetual disposition of legal matters or disputes to
render every man his due.2

The International Alliance of Holistic Lawyers

Leading the Way to Justice Through Fairness and Personal Responsibility

As members of the Alliance we commit ourselves, our
clients and the global community to:

Acknowledge the need for
a humane legal process with the highest level of satisfaction for all
participants

Honor and respect the dignity and integrity of each
individual

Promote peaceful advocacy and holistic legal principles

Value responsibility, connection and inclusion

Encourage compassion,
reconciliation, forgiveness and healing

Practice Deep Listening,
understand and recognize the importance of voice

Contribute to
peace building at all levels of society

Recognize the opportunity
in conflict

Draw upon ancient intuitive wisdom of diverse cultures
and traditions

Enjoy the practice of law

The satisfaction or dissatisfaction
of the practice of law lives in this definition. The key word is disposition.
Generically it is the act of getting rid of something or passing something
into the control of someone else. When used in its current legal capacity,
it is the term used for the Courts exercise of the power of control
over a controversy, its determination of suits.3

This definition
actually supports our traditional system and helps us to understand
why it is so dissatisfying. The traditional process requires us to
give up responsibility of our conflicts guided by lawyers who are trained
to pass on control to the Court. Then, based only upon the limited
information shared, the competitive arguments presented, and the power
given up, the Court decides our fate.

To our credit most people
do not wind up in Court. However, adversarial dis-empowerment is still
the prevailing relationship and conflict resolution model of our time.
We accuse, we argue, we present evidence, we seek judgment, and we
exact punishment. The model is taught and supported from our earliest
of recollections through school and into adulthood where we pass the
process on to our children. Whether guilty or innocent, plaintiff or
defendant, in Court or between friends, we dread the process of accusation
and defense. In so doing we separate ourselves and fear relationships.
We carry shields of ready defense against those we would otherwise
share our innermost selves with. We live in fear of judgment, our own
and that of others.

Accusation and defense or adversarial dis-empowerment
is a process that we hate because it separates our ability to be completely
open and honest or at-one with others and ourselves. At the same time,
ironically, we cherish and place great value on it. We overwhelmingly
chose it from available alternatives almost to the point of it being
a non-choice. Even when we consider the possible consequences, the
choice seems automatic. And yet we hate it. We continue because it
is almost all we know. As long as our defenses are up, others can only
attack our shields. Being open and vulnerable is practically unknown
and far more scary. Besides, fighting is far more common. How could
I possibly survive defenseless against the more powerful? We must fight
fire with fire, right?

It is no wonder why the legal profession
is imagined the way it is. How many times has a client said, Please
dont take this the wrong way, but I hope I never have to see
you again. We represent what seems to be necessary suffering.
As long as we maintain the definition of justice as adversarial, competitive,
and dis-empowering, we maintain our positions as pallbearers to a life
of suffering for all.

Because this is the justice
we seek in the practice of our profession, it has also become a most
painful occupation. It has become a journey which we dread sharing
with those we portend to serve. As long as this is our goal, our practice
must be in pursuit of it.

So what are we to do? How do we turn
this around?

Blacks definition provides a powerful clue.
Justice, he advises, is concerned with rendering
every man his due.4
Is there anything more frustrating than
someone else telling you that they know what is best for you? We get
used to it as children. Even as parents we cant seem to break
the habit no matter how old our children are. Have you ever been in
a conversation with someone who is having a problem and you find yourself
prefacing your advice with, If I were you I would ... Ah,
it is just so much easier to deal with the faults and problems of others
rather than focus on our own. And how can we possibly give competent
advice? We know nothing in comparison to the individual whose problem
we are commenting on. And yet talking about other people, other peoples
problems, and presenting advice is the most common conversation we
engage in.5

This has become more than just casual conversation,
we have institutionalized it. Someone else is to blame. Lawyers know
best how to win for me. The judge will make the proper
decision. The punishment will fit the crime. Justice will be done.
Somewhere along the way we became more than just our brothers
keeper, but our brothers judge and executioner.

Yet when
we have erred, regardless of the outer consequences, we have become
experts at self-imposed punishment. We are our own worst critics and
often the creators of the most incredible internal dis-ease imaginable.
But do we dispose of our internal conflicts? How can we?
It is not taught in school and it is the all too rare household that
models this healthy exercise. We never reveal our dirty laundry in
public. Family secrets stay family secrets. Skeletons remain in the
closet. The result is the acting out of inner turmoil and violence
upon a well-meaning, but constrictive society.

One might imagine
that early societies were communities. People knew each other. Those
they did not know personally, they knew empirically. Sharing inner
anxiety was the path toward wellness. Reconciling recurring struggles
with the wisdom of the elders was the communitys ever expanding
road to the future. Communities agreed upon guidelines of common sense
for their common protection and welfare. Each member was not only presumed
innocent but had no reason to be otherwise. Honesty was the way of
life. The consequences of a disregarded guideline were experienced
by the entire community. The impact of the consequence on the entire
community was the only punishment on the individual. Self-imposed.
Such transgressions brought communities together in grief and forgiveness
of the individual. Group introspection revealed the conditions and
circumstances that led up to the infraction and how this event served
in the individuals and the communitys evolution. As societies
grew larger they lost their sense of community. We can only speculate
as to when and why this occurred, but the effects of this initial separation
from each other and continued divergence are taking us further and
further from our ideals.

We have unfortunately decided, even
if only by our individual refusal to question, resist, or live our
lives differently, that real community either does not or cannot exist.
Our simple, common sense, community guidelines became rules with unnatural
consequences; judgment followed by punishment imposed by one another.
We have created a far more complex society. We dont take the
opportunity to open ourselves up to allow others to know us personally.
Nor are we willing to see each other as equals. We dont trust
one another.

There is no fault or blame here. We fear one another.
We made rules in order to preserve our concept of safety.
These man-made laws reflected the minds and the fears of
the men that made them. The action of the fear-based creation of these
laws has had the effect of a fear-based society. In the
tradition of our current notion of justice, the word law
has come to mean the rules of conduct enforced by a controlling authority.6
We have created an almost inhuman authority to inflict punishment
on other human beings that we would not bring ourselves to do. For
many of us, it is even difficult to imagine what amount of pain and
suffering we do to each other in the name of justice.

So how do we turn this around? We must move justice
from the mundane event of impersonal, adversarial dis-empowerment to
the yet untried and certainly unaccomplished goal of personal, cooperative
empowerment. We must personally get involved with the disposing of
our own personal conflicts and the conflicts of our collective society.
We must help one another release the past and proceed to expand our
limitations.

We see glimpses of this community during catastrophes.
People help one another without regard for remuneration. They help
for the good of all: true service with no strings attached. All because
helping each other feels good. The disregard of the welfare of fellow
human beings in a time of need is forever haunting.

Blacks
definition of law is very enlightening here: A rule or
method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each
other.7
Like pebbles that are dropped in to a pond, events happen
and every drop of water shifts to accommodate. For each action there
is an equal and opposite reaction. As you sow, so shall you reap. These
are the laws we must come back to understanding when evaluating our
actions. What goes around comes around.

I am not suggesting that
we drop our current system of laws and enforcement. This
drop would have quite an impact upon our pond. What I am
suggesting is to see beyond the walls of our system and begin to live
our lives in accordance with the greater laws of life. The ideal. If
we do so the current system will expand to accommodate our growth,
our caring, and compassion.

Blacks definition of justice
is fine and it is, indeed, possible to find satisfaction alive in it.
Our concept of laws must return to their original meaning.
We must take responsibility to dispose of our own inner
conflicts ourselves and seek the communitys help and guidance.
In turn the community must take responsibility for the health and welfare
of its own. Perhaps justice is not something we do or have control
over, but rather something that is. Justice is the denouement of our
life. It is how our book turns out. Perhaps the rendering of mens
due is not something that is decreed but something that happens naturally,
lawfully. Kindness is its own reward. A spiteful act serves its own
punishment.

In our hearts we have a picture of how things could
be. Is there not a soul among us that is not seeking happiness? When
we recast the definition of justice, our methods or practice
to accomplish it will transform in its path.

5. Talking about other people can be helpful when
the participants understand that what one sees in others can usually
be found within. This therapeutic inward look is rare to our culture.

6. Blacks at p. 795 (Law).

7. Ibid. at p. 795
(Law).

For more information about the International Alliance
of Holistic Lawyers, you can e-mail the President of the Alliance
of Holistic Lawyers, Bill van Zyverden, at hjc1@aol.com, or write P.O.
Box 753, Middlebury, VT 05753, (802) 388-7478.. Or visit their website:
www.iahl.org.